With the A&E Duck Dynasty fiasco going on right now, I am seeing a lot of misinformation flying around from conservatives. In most instances, people are simply not telling the truth. Let me tackle most of these asinine claims in list form.
Claim #1. He couldn't speak his mind/express himself.
Fact: The article is in GQ Magazine. His words have not been censored. Everything GQ published in the article is from Phil. His 1st Amendment rights have not been limited.
That's how we got into this mess. He expressed himself. His rights are intact.
What happened was, his words had consequences. You know what consequences are, right? When you say something that is offensive and ignorant, you're going to catch hell for it. You learn not to let your mouth run faster than you can think. You learn that there are some things you just should not say.
It isn't a crime to turn off your verbal filter, but it can end your career. In this world, we hold people accountable, or at least we try to.
Claim #2: "We never judge" blah blah blah from the article in question. "I would never treat anyone with disrespect."
This is not what A&E suspended him for. His comments about blacks, anal sex, vaginas, bestiality, etc reflected poorly on A&E's reputation. Being gay isn't logical? That's judgment. Making anal sex the focal point of your perspective on gays? That's judgment.
All of his views on blacks and homosexuals are disrespectful. He doesn't love all of humanity. That's simply not supported by the rest of what he said.
Claim #3: Liberal hypocrisy/Political Correctness hypocrisy
This claim surmises that Christians are unfairly targeted and that, had this been a Muslim or a liberal, nothing would have happened.
Fact: This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Islamic Extremists hold the same beliefs as Phil on homosexuality, so in essence, by condemning his ideals, we also condemn anyone else who thinks of gays as he does. On top of that, the Dixie Chicks were met with extreme scrutiny for expressing themselves and I didn't hear much from the Right Wing freedom fighters then. Lots of liberals have been given the axe.
John Edwards. Anthony Weiner. Alec Baldwin. Keith Olbermann. Shall I continue listing people?
Claim #4: Miley Cyrus got away with groping herself on national television and poor Phil gets the axe.
Did Miley get away with her performance? I'm fairly certain she was made a mockery of on several networks and online. I saw the joke photos of Will Smith and his family. I saw the outrage on Twitter. I saw the complaints that this aired on television. I saw the SNL skits. I saw the comparisons to her former Disney persona.
Miley Cyrus did not get away with groping herself. She was immediately ridiculed, condemned, and chastised. She was held accountable and lost several fans as a result.
Duck Dynasty fans, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are defending the indefensible words of religious-based hatred of an entire group of people in the process.
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Friday, December 20, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
Thoughts on the "threat" of tyranny
In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
An Unstable Conservative Mind
While I will preface this post with an understanding that mental illness and violent rhetoric exists on both sides of the aisle, there is an overwhelming trend among the conservative ilk that continually makes liberals like me fear for our safety.
Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.
I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.
That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.
The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.
Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html
I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.
Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.
I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.
That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.
The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.
Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html
I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Two Biggest Problems With Clint Eastwood's Speech
While the internet is still buzzing from the hilarity that was Clint Eastwood's rambling on the RNC stage at the convention, two things stood out in my mind as I watched the coverage and replay of the poorly timed and poorly placed attempt at Republican enthusiasm. While I agree with Bill Maher that producing comedy with an empty chair is a difficult task and that Eastwood pulled that part off, I did not find the act itself to be of the quality or decency that we should expect in a campaign.
Let me explain what I mean.
Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?
Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful. Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.
This leads to my second impression of this crap.
This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.
Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.
When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.
That is all.
Let me explain what I mean.
Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?
Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful. Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.
This leads to my second impression of this crap.
This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.
Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.
When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.
That is all.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Paul Ryan did ask for stimulus money.
Here are screen shots of documents written and signed by Paul Ryan in referencing money being provided by the economic stimulus.
When Paul Ryan says he did not request money from the economic stimulus, he is lying to you.
Don't like it? Too bad. That's his signature there at the bottom of each of these documents.
Now, when he states that the stimulus did not work, surely he has to answer for the fact that, when making these requests, he believed the stimulus would indeed work. Folks, Paul Ryan is merely posturing for political purposes and personal gain now that he is the VP nominee. Not only is it a lie that the stimulus did not work, but the fact that he believed it would work calls into question his current mindset about government spending.
1. We've established he has difficulty with honesty.
2. We've established he has difficulty recollecting about his own actions.
3. We've established that he is saying things just so Mitt Romney can get elected.
As the adage says, a leopard can't change its spots.
When Paul Ryan says he did not request money from the economic stimulus, he is lying to you.
Don't like it? Too bad. That's his signature there at the bottom of each of these documents.
Now, when he states that the stimulus did not work, surely he has to answer for the fact that, when making these requests, he believed the stimulus would indeed work. Folks, Paul Ryan is merely posturing for political purposes and personal gain now that he is the VP nominee. Not only is it a lie that the stimulus did not work, but the fact that he believed it would work calls into question his current mindset about government spending.
1. We've established he has difficulty with honesty.
2. We've established he has difficulty recollecting about his own actions.
3. We've established that he is saying things just so Mitt Romney can get elected.
As the adage says, a leopard can't change its spots.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
How Voter Purging and Papers Please are Linked: Republican Delusions
One of the things about journalism in the US that gets me going is how pundits respond to anything the Republican or Democratic parties do or say. When the news covers a story, it is often framed in such a way that makes an action or phrase sound so preposterous that the party in question has done something outrageous and unheard of. The fact of the matter is, whether you're listening to Fox News or MSNBC, the facts were twisted to cater to an audience who would naturally become suckered into believing something so outrageous when it is nothing of the sort, sort of.
Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.
Voter Purging
The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.
The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.
On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.
Papers Please
The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.
The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.
The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.
The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.
It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.
Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.
Voter Purging
The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.
The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.
On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.
Papers Please
The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.
The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.
The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.
The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.
It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Santorum Super PAC plays on Islamophobia
Ads are playing right now in Louisiana for the Republican campaigns and I just happened to see one running for Rick Santorum. The ad attacks President Obama on energy policy and it was funded by the Red White and Blue Fund super PAC. As a Louisiana resident, I would prefer that people question the ads playing on our televisions. Knowing Louisiana, this isn't going to happen, so I'm going to be the one person who writes about this damn ad.
First, it attacks Obama using buzzwords, those buzzwords being "foreign oil" and "radicals." The stage was set to plant the seed of Republican American isolationism and fear from the start. From there, the ad went on to say the money we spend on oil goes to "fund radicals with bad intentions," showing a photo of obvious angry Muslim protesters with some form of Arabic language written on a sign on a building, followed by a burning American flag.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we put the gas in our gas tanks. We, American citizens, spend the money which goes to the oil companies and countries in the Middle East, not President Obama. It's our money, not his. We're to blame, Rick. It's our addiction that is the problem.
High prices are also the result of speculation, but market speculation isn't covered in the ad. If you're not talking about market speculation, then you aren't serious about gas prices. Really. You are not at all serious about gas prices.
But we also don't fund radicals. That's just factually inaccurate. Sure, I'm certain some Middle East countries have ties to terrorist organizations, but let's face it. The oil money is going to the very rich families in Saudia Arabia, for example, so that they can live lavish and luxurious lives. Our money goes to the US oil companies so that they can reinvest in research, but also so they can fill their pockets.
Santorum's solution is to investigate domestic sources, utilize natural gas, open up drilling and build pipelines to lower costs, according to the ad.
Unfortunately, these solutions will not provide any immediate relief. These are all long term plans. The Republican plan right now is to drill, baby, drill. It was the same plan they had in 2008. They haven't evolved away from that plan, aside from talking up more natural gas investments.
Americans want immediate relief. No Republican candidate can provide that level of relief with more drilling. We have to build the equipment first and that takes time. This is a promise they cannot keep, but because Americans only think in terms of immediate results, that's how the super PAC wants to play their advertising hand. We are apparently that stupid, or at least they think we're that stupid.
If you're a Republican, ask your candidates what solutions they have to lower gas prices within the next month. Yes, a month. Maybe two.
Sure, we could establish a long term plan to lower prices and increase supplies, but what does that do for you right now? Nothing. Not a damn thing, son.
First, it attacks Obama using buzzwords, those buzzwords being "foreign oil" and "radicals." The stage was set to plant the seed of Republican American isolationism and fear from the start. From there, the ad went on to say the money we spend on oil goes to "fund radicals with bad intentions," showing a photo of obvious angry Muslim protesters with some form of Arabic language written on a sign on a building, followed by a burning American flag.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we put the gas in our gas tanks. We, American citizens, spend the money which goes to the oil companies and countries in the Middle East, not President Obama. It's our money, not his. We're to blame, Rick. It's our addiction that is the problem.
High prices are also the result of speculation, but market speculation isn't covered in the ad. If you're not talking about market speculation, then you aren't serious about gas prices. Really. You are not at all serious about gas prices.
But we also don't fund radicals. That's just factually inaccurate. Sure, I'm certain some Middle East countries have ties to terrorist organizations, but let's face it. The oil money is going to the very rich families in Saudia Arabia, for example, so that they can live lavish and luxurious lives. Our money goes to the US oil companies so that they can reinvest in research, but also so they can fill their pockets.
Santorum's solution is to investigate domestic sources, utilize natural gas, open up drilling and build pipelines to lower costs, according to the ad.
Unfortunately, these solutions will not provide any immediate relief. These are all long term plans. The Republican plan right now is to drill, baby, drill. It was the same plan they had in 2008. They haven't evolved away from that plan, aside from talking up more natural gas investments.
Americans want immediate relief. No Republican candidate can provide that level of relief with more drilling. We have to build the equipment first and that takes time. This is a promise they cannot keep, but because Americans only think in terms of immediate results, that's how the super PAC wants to play their advertising hand. We are apparently that stupid, or at least they think we're that stupid.
If you're a Republican, ask your candidates what solutions they have to lower gas prices within the next month. Yes, a month. Maybe two.
Sure, we could establish a long term plan to lower prices and increase supplies, but what does that do for you right now? Nothing. Not a damn thing, son.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Will Ron Paul Split The Vote?
In modern politics right now, the more liberal media outlets are focusing most, if not all of their attention on the Republican primaries. The respective pundits hit all the high points, the Newt vs Mitt phenomenon, the Mitt vs Mitt phenomenon, and even the icky colorful Santorum Surge. These same media outlets have also mentioned that Ron Paul has largely been left out of the mainstream discussion, in part because he is not seen as a viable candidate. Yes, folks, MSNBC does cover Ron Paul, despite what your conservative friends have said.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Problem With Leaders: OWS
The Occupy Wall Street movement has acquired a significant amount of attention over the past few weeks, but the most common criticism, perhaps improperly applied, has been that the movement lacks a cohesiveness. There are no prominent leaders or big names which come to mind when you think of OWS. The question then, is, should OWS have a leader or leaders?
At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.
Or would it?
You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.
OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.
Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.
After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?
At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.
Or would it?
You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.
OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.
Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.
After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Childish Behavior Extends Beyond Congress
One of the things that is bothering me right now about the debt ceiling debate is not that we are at an impasse at the level of the Federal Government, but that we are regularly at odds across America. Right now, every news outlet is playing up the idea that Obama and Boehner are behaving like children. They even bring in reasonably sounding Americans to chastise the bickering. At face value, it looks as though the problem is with government. Americans recognize that the rest of the world is looking at us and shaking their heads.
But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.
I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.
I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.
I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.
I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.
It's us.
We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.
Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.
But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.
I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.
I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.
I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.
I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.
It's us.
We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.
Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
How do you feel about the Koch brothers?
If there's one incongruent thought floating around out there in conservative voter's minds, it's that while politicians are all the same, governed by private interests and corrupt money, when it's a Republican politician receiving the boost, it's okay. Yes, it's an extension of the IOKIYAR problem. In order to remain consistent, one would have to be opposed to corporate influence on the political process.
So here's my question and I'm asking it only to conservative voters.
What is your opinion of the Koch brothers?
Are you proud of them? Do they just belong to your "stick it to liberals" club? Are you okay with their money influencing your candidate just because you want your candidate to stick it to any and every liberal out there?
Or do you find their influence to be equally deplorable? How do you feel knowing that your candidate is not chosen by voters, but bought?
Let me know. I'd be curious to see just how angry you are at government corruption. After all, the Tea Party is nothing more than a Koch brothers' production. This isn't about unions. This isn't about Democrats. This is about your personal ethical standards by which you choose to live by. This is about what it is you are willing to support and what you refuse to put up with as a voter in America.
So here's my question and I'm asking it only to conservative voters.
What is your opinion of the Koch brothers?
Are you proud of them? Do they just belong to your "stick it to liberals" club? Are you okay with their money influencing your candidate just because you want your candidate to stick it to any and every liberal out there?
Or do you find their influence to be equally deplorable? How do you feel knowing that your candidate is not chosen by voters, but bought?
Let me know. I'd be curious to see just how angry you are at government corruption. After all, the Tea Party is nothing more than a Koch brothers' production. This isn't about unions. This isn't about Democrats. This is about your personal ethical standards by which you choose to live by. This is about what it is you are willing to support and what you refuse to put up with as a voter in America.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Vitter vs Weiner
This is modern US politics. When a Democrat does something underhanded, a witch hunt on the Right brings him down. When a Republican does something underhanded, there is no witch hunt and he is re-elected. Of course, I am speaking about the Anthony Weiner scandal. I am also comparing it to the David Vitter scandal.
This is the problem with our current political system. If you are a Conservative in this country, your voting strategy is as simple as not voting for any Democrat. Any Republican in the mind of a Conservative is better than a Democrat, even if the Republican is the biggest hypocrite and scumbag on the planet. A Conservative will still vote for anyone who has an R next to their name over anyone with a D.
That's just sad.
Let's just remind Conservatives that what Anthony Weiner has supposedly done was not illegal. It was wrong, but not illegal. David Vitter was a patron to prostitutes. That was and still is illegal. Republican leaders don't have a strong record of asking their criminals to resign, so why should someone resign over something that isn't against the law? Republican congressmen have escaped punishment over worse circumstances.
Regarding Vitter...
Where was the Right Wing witch hunt? I never saw it. The general public never saw your outrage. If it existed, show me. Show me the pages and pages of comments at the end of news articles clamoring for Vitter to resign. Some commenters want Anthony Weiner to go to jail of all things. Show me the Republican equivalent in the Vitter scandal.
Anthony Weiner will likely resign. David Vitter ran for office again and Louisiana voters sent him back to work in DC. Weiner will not see the same fortunate outcome. Nancy Pelosi is calling for an ethics investigation and Democrats have attempted to distance themselves from Weiner. He will be urged to resign. Vitter should have been urged to resign. Pretty simple response to bad behavior, if you ask me. If it makes the party look bad, resign.
The same thing is going on right now with John Edwards, but what about John Ensign?
You can take this argument all the way to the outrage toward Obama over spending that George W. Bush never saw from the Right.
You need to understand that Republican politics is about the hatred of Liberalism. Liberal politics is about finding answers and solving problems, even if the policy may not work. Liberal policy is not about the hatred of conservative principles and ideas. It never will be. Liberals support tax cuts. Liberals support the free market. Liberals are not opposed to capitalism. Liberals are not happy Anthony Weiner did what he did, but if Vitter can get away with cheating on his wife with hookers, then Anthony Weiner can get away with some photos and correspondance with women. Small potatoes compared to prostitution. Liberals also tend to hold their elected officials accountable when they screw up. That behavior is less prominent on the Right.
This is all about Weiner being a Democrat. That's all it boils down to. If you're a Democrat, you've expressed your disgust accordingly with consistency. You likely wanted Vitter to resign. You're not proud of John Edwards. You're not proud of Bill Clinton's blowjob scandal either. So in turn, you're most certainly not happy about Anthony Weiner's problems. If you're not a Democrat, your response to this story is firmly rooted not in fairness and right and wrong, but rather, the cookie cutter hatred for those on the Left.
Conservatives are proud to be assholes. Democrats frequently seek out compromise and give in. For Republicans, it isn't about right and wrong. It's about winning. If you're going to be the kind of voter who defends your own kind, and in doing so, you choose to be an antagonistic hypocrite about it, you deserve to be called an asshole. It's time to give Democratic politicians the same leeway Conservatives give their douchebags. It may not be right, but what do we have to lose? Our souls? US politics is already in the crapper. Who cares? It's time for Democrats to be assholes too. It's time to get our hands dirty. In politics, the moral high ground is frankly a road to nowhere.
Let me show you something else.
Links to Breitbart.com David Vitter Stories:
Despite scandals, Vitter the La. primary favorite
Sen. Vitter easily wins GOP nomination in La.
Vitter won't say whether 'serious sin' broke law
New Orleans Madam Names Sen. Vitter
What do all of these articles have in common? Aside from all of them apparently being AP News articles reposted on Breitbart.com, the other thing all of these articles have in common is a lack of outrage. Where are the comments? There are none. NONE. Not one. Not even one from a Democrat.
I'm not holding Breitbart's feet to the fire. I'm holding Republican voters accountable. They have plenty of time to write foul comments on these articles. Starting from the top, there are 134, 103, 97, 158, 120, 229, 143, and 208 comments, respectively, at the time of posting this photo which shows recent Anthony Weiner articles on Breitbart.com.
This is the problem with our current political system. If you are a Conservative in this country, your voting strategy is as simple as not voting for any Democrat. Any Republican in the mind of a Conservative is better than a Democrat, even if the Republican is the biggest hypocrite and scumbag on the planet. A Conservative will still vote for anyone who has an R next to their name over anyone with a D.
That's just sad.
Let's just remind Conservatives that what Anthony Weiner has supposedly done was not illegal. It was wrong, but not illegal. David Vitter was a patron to prostitutes. That was and still is illegal. Republican leaders don't have a strong record of asking their criminals to resign, so why should someone resign over something that isn't against the law? Republican congressmen have escaped punishment over worse circumstances.
Regarding Vitter...
Where was the Right Wing witch hunt? I never saw it. The general public never saw your outrage. If it existed, show me. Show me the pages and pages of comments at the end of news articles clamoring for Vitter to resign. Some commenters want Anthony Weiner to go to jail of all things. Show me the Republican equivalent in the Vitter scandal.
Anthony Weiner will likely resign. David Vitter ran for office again and Louisiana voters sent him back to work in DC. Weiner will not see the same fortunate outcome. Nancy Pelosi is calling for an ethics investigation and Democrats have attempted to distance themselves from Weiner. He will be urged to resign. Vitter should have been urged to resign. Pretty simple response to bad behavior, if you ask me. If it makes the party look bad, resign.
The same thing is going on right now with John Edwards, but what about John Ensign?
You can take this argument all the way to the outrage toward Obama over spending that George W. Bush never saw from the Right.
You need to understand that Republican politics is about the hatred of Liberalism. Liberal politics is about finding answers and solving problems, even if the policy may not work. Liberal policy is not about the hatred of conservative principles and ideas. It never will be. Liberals support tax cuts. Liberals support the free market. Liberals are not opposed to capitalism. Liberals are not happy Anthony Weiner did what he did, but if Vitter can get away with cheating on his wife with hookers, then Anthony Weiner can get away with some photos and correspondance with women. Small potatoes compared to prostitution. Liberals also tend to hold their elected officials accountable when they screw up. That behavior is less prominent on the Right.
This is all about Weiner being a Democrat. That's all it boils down to. If you're a Democrat, you've expressed your disgust accordingly with consistency. You likely wanted Vitter to resign. You're not proud of John Edwards. You're not proud of Bill Clinton's blowjob scandal either. So in turn, you're most certainly not happy about Anthony Weiner's problems. If you're not a Democrat, your response to this story is firmly rooted not in fairness and right and wrong, but rather, the cookie cutter hatred for those on the Left.
Conservatives are proud to be assholes. Democrats frequently seek out compromise and give in. For Republicans, it isn't about right and wrong. It's about winning. If you're going to be the kind of voter who defends your own kind, and in doing so, you choose to be an antagonistic hypocrite about it, you deserve to be called an asshole. It's time to give Democratic politicians the same leeway Conservatives give their douchebags. It may not be right, but what do we have to lose? Our souls? US politics is already in the crapper. Who cares? It's time for Democrats to be assholes too. It's time to get our hands dirty. In politics, the moral high ground is frankly a road to nowhere.
Let me show you something else.
Links to Breitbart.com David Vitter Stories:
Despite scandals, Vitter the La. primary favorite
Sen. Vitter easily wins GOP nomination in La.
Vitter won't say whether 'serious sin' broke law
New Orleans Madam Names Sen. Vitter
What do all of these articles have in common? Aside from all of them apparently being AP News articles reposted on Breitbart.com, the other thing all of these articles have in common is a lack of outrage. Where are the comments? There are none. NONE. Not one. Not even one from a Democrat.
I'm not holding Breitbart's feet to the fire. I'm holding Republican voters accountable. They have plenty of time to write foul comments on these articles. Starting from the top, there are 134, 103, 97, 158, 120, 229, 143, and 208 comments, respectively, at the time of posting this photo which shows recent Anthony Weiner articles on Breitbart.com.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Ron Paul Quote Contradicts His Normal Self
Ron Paul is generally seen as the spokesperson for getting government out of our lives. He is seen as the person who wants bloated rules and regulations removed, allowing businesses to operate with more freedom.
But then you have this next quote, Paul referencing President Obama in respect to the War Powers Act.
Ah, yes. You cannot count on people being good people. Well, sir, we cannot count on businesses being good businesses, nor can we count on business owners being good people. Profit is a strong motivator for doing unscrupulous things. This reasoning is the whole point behind imposing restrictions on certain things. We do not live in an ideal world and when people are allowed to do as they please, there is no guarantee that they will do the right thing and innocent people often suffer for those bad choices.
Legalize heroin and in an ideal world, no, people won't run out and do heroin. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. People love their vices. People love mental escapism. People do partake. People will go out and do heroin because there is no legal accountability. People do it even with legal consequences in place, after all.
So I agree that the War Powers Act should be followed. I don't like that Obama and Congress let this get dragged out as long as it has. If Congress supports our actions in Libya, then suppor should have been issued days, if not weeks ago. The 60 day mark was hit, so the way I see it, our actions in Libya must come to a close. Of course, Harry Reid has officially said in an interview that the War Powers Act is confusing and needs revision. Maybe this is one of those instances where a revision would clarify things, but the simple take on the current situation is that 60 days is 60 days, regardless.
In other words, I'm trying to be consistent here, unlike Ron Paul. There should not be exceptions placed on States' rights vs Federal power. Government is government, local or national. People are people, State or Federal. Crooked State officials are just as bad as Federal abuses of power.
Because people are not always good people, we have the Civil Rights Act. We have Medicare. We have Social Security. We have Welfare. We have taxes. We have laws. We are trying to avoid not only unfair practices, but anarchy itself.
But then you have this next quote, Paul referencing President Obama in respect to the War Powers Act.
"You could say, 'Well, we have a good president, he'll do the right thing.' Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that's why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people,"
Ah, yes. You cannot count on people being good people. Well, sir, we cannot count on businesses being good businesses, nor can we count on business owners being good people. Profit is a strong motivator for doing unscrupulous things. This reasoning is the whole point behind imposing restrictions on certain things. We do not live in an ideal world and when people are allowed to do as they please, there is no guarantee that they will do the right thing and innocent people often suffer for those bad choices.
Legalize heroin and in an ideal world, no, people won't run out and do heroin. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. People love their vices. People love mental escapism. People do partake. People will go out and do heroin because there is no legal accountability. People do it even with legal consequences in place, after all.
So I agree that the War Powers Act should be followed. I don't like that Obama and Congress let this get dragged out as long as it has. If Congress supports our actions in Libya, then suppor should have been issued days, if not weeks ago. The 60 day mark was hit, so the way I see it, our actions in Libya must come to a close. Of course, Harry Reid has officially said in an interview that the War Powers Act is confusing and needs revision. Maybe this is one of those instances where a revision would clarify things, but the simple take on the current situation is that 60 days is 60 days, regardless.
In other words, I'm trying to be consistent here, unlike Ron Paul. There should not be exceptions placed on States' rights vs Federal power. Government is government, local or national. People are people, State or Federal. Crooked State officials are just as bad as Federal abuses of power.
Because people are not always good people, we have the Civil Rights Act. We have Medicare. We have Social Security. We have Welfare. We have taxes. We have laws. We are trying to avoid not only unfair practices, but anarchy itself.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Bobby Jindal's damn name
I just read an article over at nola.com about how Bobby Jindal released his long form birth certificate. In this article, Timothy Teepell, the governor's chief of staff, claimed that "Opponents have referred to Gov. Jindal as Piyush 'Amit' Jindal for years to insinuate that someone with a foreign-sounding name is less American than you or I."
Um...no. The spin machine that is the chief of staff wants Republican voters to think Democrats are attacking Jindal for having a foreign sounding name. This is not the case.
What critics of Jindal have always tried to highlight is how Bobby Jindal has turned his back on his culture in order to appease the white voters in the southern state of Louisiana. Without the name, white voters with racist tendencies would be less likely to vote for him simply for having a different name.
In essence, what opponents claim is that Republicans know Republican voters will see "Piyush Amrit Jindal" as a foreign-sounding name and by making the change, Jindal is manipulating an electorate with racist tendencies and a profound distaste for anything foreign. "Bobby" is just a friendly sounding name that is more palatable in Cajun country.
However, I've long argued that Republicans would vote for the Devil if his competition were a Democrat. All you need to do as a Conservative is have an (R) next to your name. Doesn't matter what you look like. A Democrat is subhuman compared to anything else to a Republican. "Anything but a Liberal" is the modern Conservative slogan.
But I mean, come on. Jindal has not only changed his name to put his heritage behind him, but he also changed his Faith along the way too. Opponents aren't after Jindal for sounding foreign. Opponents are simply pointing out the obvious pandering going on.
Good grief. Someone has his head up his ass and his name is Timothy Teepell.
The methodology here goes like this.
THIS
Becomes
THIS
OR
THIS
Um...no. The spin machine that is the chief of staff wants Republican voters to think Democrats are attacking Jindal for having a foreign sounding name. This is not the case.
What critics of Jindal have always tried to highlight is how Bobby Jindal has turned his back on his culture in order to appease the white voters in the southern state of Louisiana. Without the name, white voters with racist tendencies would be less likely to vote for him simply for having a different name.
In essence, what opponents claim is that Republicans know Republican voters will see "Piyush Amrit Jindal" as a foreign-sounding name and by making the change, Jindal is manipulating an electorate with racist tendencies and a profound distaste for anything foreign. "Bobby" is just a friendly sounding name that is more palatable in Cajun country.
However, I've long argued that Republicans would vote for the Devil if his competition were a Democrat. All you need to do as a Conservative is have an (R) next to your name. Doesn't matter what you look like. A Democrat is subhuman compared to anything else to a Republican. "Anything but a Liberal" is the modern Conservative slogan.
But I mean, come on. Jindal has not only changed his name to put his heritage behind him, but he also changed his Faith along the way too. Opponents aren't after Jindal for sounding foreign. Opponents are simply pointing out the obvious pandering going on.
Good grief. Someone has his head up his ass and his name is Timothy Teepell.
The methodology here goes like this.
THIS
Becomes
THIS
OR
THIS
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Death threats against Obama should be condemned
While I must sadly preface my remarks with condemnation of the death threats made against Wisconsin lawmakers in the wake of the union busting legislation snafoo, the fact remains that, even prior to his election, Barack Obama was a target of the hate present on the Right, hate rooted in racist ideals. The vitriol within the 2008 election campaigns fed this angst and from it, we were given this new breed of Conservative called the Birther. Beyond Birthers, white supremacist groups and your run of the mill corner drug store racists have gone unpunished. When comments regarding calling for the death of a US President are made, they should be taken seriously.
Remember when the teenager posted the "Kill Bush" thing on her Myspace profile? How much attention did that receive? It made national news!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/ns/us_news-security/
So where is the coverage of threats against Obama? I haven't seen many reports aside from stuff from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anyone who frequents any political discussion board knows just how frequent such comments can be. Go on Yahoo News and read the comments. You'll find some, at least up until moderators remove them. Go on just about any forum where Conservatives comment and you'll find these sad excuses for human beings.
I'm going to post screen shots from a thread on Topix. If you've never been on Topix, rest assured that if you need to gather evidence showing just how psychotic Right Wing zealots can be, Topix is the place. It has everything from white supremacists to religious bigotry posted on behalf of some high profile Christian extremists.
Each of the following screen shots were taken from the same thread. The thread in question was about the Birther Bill being proposed in Louisiana, something I discussed in my last post. Judging by other commenters in the thread, it seems this same person has a reputation for posting death threats. Why is this person allowed to continue? Because we aren't doing anything about death threats directed at Barack Obama.
The thread is located here. By the time you read it, perhaps moderators will have already removed the objectionable posts.
If you want to see more of the same kinds of comments made by the same user, just do a simple search.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atopix.com+_caes
Remember when the teenager posted the "Kill Bush" thing on her Myspace profile? How much attention did that receive? It made national news!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/ns/us_news-security/
So where is the coverage of threats against Obama? I haven't seen many reports aside from stuff from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anyone who frequents any political discussion board knows just how frequent such comments can be. Go on Yahoo News and read the comments. You'll find some, at least up until moderators remove them. Go on just about any forum where Conservatives comment and you'll find these sad excuses for human beings.
I'm going to post screen shots from a thread on Topix. If you've never been on Topix, rest assured that if you need to gather evidence showing just how psychotic Right Wing zealots can be, Topix is the place. It has everything from white supremacists to religious bigotry posted on behalf of some high profile Christian extremists.
Each of the following screen shots were taken from the same thread. The thread in question was about the Birther Bill being proposed in Louisiana, something I discussed in my last post. Judging by other commenters in the thread, it seems this same person has a reputation for posting death threats. Why is this person allowed to continue? Because we aren't doing anything about death threats directed at Barack Obama.
The thread is located here. By the time you read it, perhaps moderators will have already removed the objectionable posts.
If you want to see more of the same kinds of comments made by the same user, just do a simple search.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atopix.com+_caes
Monday, April 18, 2011
Republicans position themselves to deny me the right to vote for Barack Obama
At this very moment, two Representatives in Louisiana are proposing a bill similar to what has been passed in Arizona pertaining to birth certificates and elections. In doing this, they create a situation where, if the officials cannot accept the documentation submitted to them by President Barack Obama, there is a good chance Louisiana will not let him on the ballot....And I will be unable to vote. Barack Obama has already shown a valid birth certificate, yet the crazy people aren't at all satisfied.
This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.
Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?
Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?
Is this the new way to steal an election?
This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.
Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.
Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.
This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.
Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?
Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?
Is this the new way to steal an election?
This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.
Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.
Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Why secession no longer equates to leaving
Via a podcast download, I am currently watching Rachel Maddow from 4/12/2011. At this moment in the show, Rachel is covering secession, the Civil War, and state sovereignty. Like many liberal pundits, what Rachel fails to see is the reality behind the words being used by Conservatives. As a rational person, it makes sense to her that when Texans scream for secession, we should see it as a sign that these Texans want to leave the United States of America. What I must do in this post, however, is to introduce the idea that something else is going on that has nothing to do with the old world meaning of secession and more to do with the Confederacy which no longer resides "in the attic."
I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.
These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.
So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.
This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.
In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.
So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.
I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.
These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.
So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.
This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.
In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.
So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Have we already lost?
The recent turn of events over the last few years has shown me as a voter that corporations control not only the politicians in DC, but our politicians at the local level.
When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...
We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.
We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.
I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?
Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.
You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.
Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.
So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?
This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?
When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.
When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.
"Imagine a world without Liberals."
That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.
So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.
A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.
Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?
If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...
Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.
When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.
When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.
When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...
We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.
We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.
I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?
Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.
You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.
Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.
So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?
This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?
When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.
When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.
"Imagine a world without Liberals."
That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.
So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.
A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.
Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?
If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...
Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.
When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.
When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Conservative Tweets Late To The Party
With all of the hoopla going on in Wisconsin over union busting, my initial instinct was to observe what the dialogue offered in cyberspace. Twitter was a great place to check. When the protests peaked late last week, Twitter was alive with positive comments supporting everything. The tweets reflected public opinion in terms of percentage supporting vs opposing the actions by Gov. Walker.
Today, now that the Republicans in Wisconsin have made fiscal concerns less important than ideology, attacking unions and middle class America, the vibe on Twitter is noticeably different.
Conservatives dominate the trends. Go ahead. Look for #unions. Look at all the tweets. They may have arrived late to the discussion, but now that they are here, they are flooding the internet with hatred, misinformation, and talking points related to unions.
Even in news articles posted online, commenters were largely supportive leading up to last night. Today? The Conservatives are trolling the message boards like stink on shit. The term "Union Thug" didn't get thrown out there until today on a grand scale.
One has to wonder if this isn't an organized effort to flood Twitter with negative publicity. This happened with HCR. It happens with every political topic out there. The Conservative response comes in a wave on Twitter, usually waves of misinformation and just as much hatred as witnessed in public.
The opposition just seems to be far too orchestrated than a random series of opinions.
I find this to be a peculiar observation. If public polling favors the unions, it stands to reason that Twitter should reflect these opinions. The sudden shift in content disturbs me as an American who knows corporations run the Republican party. Abrupt changes in the dialogue like what I've just described should not go unnoticed. Of course, nobody in the media will catch onto this trend. That's why I'm posting it here. When you control the dialogue, you control public opinion. The overwhelming change in opinions on Twitter incorrectly portrays the sentiments of the American working class.
All is not as it seems.
Today, now that the Republicans in Wisconsin have made fiscal concerns less important than ideology, attacking unions and middle class America, the vibe on Twitter is noticeably different.
Conservatives dominate the trends. Go ahead. Look for #unions. Look at all the tweets. They may have arrived late to the discussion, but now that they are here, they are flooding the internet with hatred, misinformation, and talking points related to unions.
Even in news articles posted online, commenters were largely supportive leading up to last night. Today? The Conservatives are trolling the message boards like stink on shit. The term "Union Thug" didn't get thrown out there until today on a grand scale.
One has to wonder if this isn't an organized effort to flood Twitter with negative publicity. This happened with HCR. It happens with every political topic out there. The Conservative response comes in a wave on Twitter, usually waves of misinformation and just as much hatred as witnessed in public.
The opposition just seems to be far too orchestrated than a random series of opinions.
I find this to be a peculiar observation. If public polling favors the unions, it stands to reason that Twitter should reflect these opinions. The sudden shift in content disturbs me as an American who knows corporations run the Republican party. Abrupt changes in the dialogue like what I've just described should not go unnoticed. Of course, nobody in the media will catch onto this trend. That's why I'm posting it here. When you control the dialogue, you control public opinion. The overwhelming change in opinions on Twitter incorrectly portrays the sentiments of the American working class.
All is not as it seems.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Huckabee vs Obama/Muslim Myth
For most Republicans, the Colbert Report is not on their radar. They probably lump him in with Stewart and all that is the scary Liberal media. Unfortunately, Republicans do come on the show, so it would benefit them to hear what has to be said, whether through ridicule, truth, or both.
During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.
To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.
1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.
So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.
During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.
To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.
1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.
So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)